I told ya so

 

1. Drew… Problem.

   You need to add the machine number. Not just the voter number at the machine. If a machine is taken in or out of service during the day (due to failure or the like) it could be necessary to know which machine it was that you voted on.

   Also, it would be assumed that as you would have each machine start with voter 1 at the start of the day… You would also need the machine number as there would be thousands of voter # 218 across the whole state throughout the days polling.

   I think it would be a wrong thing to issue a paper ballot for the voter to leave with that was so simple. The reason, recounts. If you had someone fake a whole set of the ‘take home ballots’ with the wrong details, and then went to the media with the ‘fraud’ paperwork… The media wouldnt be interested in finding out who the actual votes were cast for, and it would mean that everyone would have to keep their paper too to prove that they voted in a particular manner. Which I figure many would just can it anyway. So, the ability to ‘prove’ fraud in the public eye would be made easier with the take home papers.

   Now, I like the idea of the paper backup, and that would be something that would be submitted like the paper ballots are now a days. At the end of the day, the two systems. The actual voting machine manufactured by one vendor that does the tally in the booth, is compared with the scanned version of the ballots from the paper outputs, the scans done on a machine from another company. If they dont match, then you know there is something wrong.

   Now we have fixed the whole system, implemented a check AND double check of the votes from two different companies.

   And the results, can be encrypted a hash taken; the hash and the encrypted file sent via the internet to the appropriate locations, the votes can be done damn near real-time if you wanted them to be. And the encryption could be doubled or triple encrypted just for grins and giggles.

   Can I get a cut of that 10 billion for helping?

   Posted by B3       10/30/2008  at  07:58 PM  



2. The part that I didn’t write down ... and the reason I didn’t put the machine number or the voting precinct on the paper ... was to ensure privacy. Because there will be tens of thousands of Voter #218s all across the country. Which one is Drew? Which one is B3?

   BUT, to use your slip to verify your vote at the state or national level, you have to tell them your state, county, town info. And they look you up by calling your local election office. “High, it’s the feds. District 12, 2008, A thru G. #218 please.” And you had better be Voter #218 in that logbook. If you are, then you can use your paper to pull up your vote from the big system. If you ain’t, then you’ve got trouble. Unless you have genuine press ID maybe? Gotta be some way to let the press run a few thousand actual votes through, to provide statistics that show the thing works. Maybe just let the journos sit there and witness it as regular folks stop by to check it themselves.

   No, the numbers would not have to be sequential. You could make them random, as long as each polling place had it’s own set. That’s actually a bit more secure. Then voter 1 at machine 1 could be given number 1234, while voter 2 at machine 1 would be number 17, and voter 658 at machine 17 gets number 1. As long as the number gets written next to your name when you sign into the log book, along with what machine you get sent to.

   Oh, and nobody could throw out their slips within 100 yards of polling places. If you don’t want them, then take them home and throw them out there. I think most people would probably save them actually.

   I like your idea of multiple companies doing different parts of the tallying. at least that’s what I think you’re saying. So nobody can blame it on Diebold alone. Of course, like I said the code is dead simple:

   case (voted_value_for_issue_1) of
   {
   1: counter_1 = counter_1 + 1;
   2: counter_2 = counter_2 + 1;
   3: counter_3 = counter_3 + 1;
   else: error_flag;
   }

   and that’s all there is too it, pretty much. So it doesn’t really matter who makes the machines.

   My underlying point is that it is really simple to set up a voting system that is fast, efficient, absolutely accurate, and damn near bullet-proof. Same goes for voter IDs. It isn’t brain surgery. So why does it never get done?

   Posted by Drew458       10/30/2008  at  11:48 PM  



3. And a simple window washer will lead us out of the darkness. Way to go Drew

   Posted by Rich K       10/31/2008  at  01:21 AM  



4. I do believe that is about how the machines work now - I just ran through the deal (have the book here) about 10 days ago - somehow gov meetings/training sessions become mind numbing after the first one and since I’m on 29+ years of them - I tend to only hear blah, blah, blah.

   But I do remember the machine tape (as I was the lucky person from the groups of #1s or was it #3s) who got to do it (open machine up and close machine down - whoop dee do - won’t get to do it on Tues as I’m not the Precinct Judge - see if there is one thing I do know, it is chain of command).

   The good thing about the machines - as opposed to paper ballots and their hanging chads of yesterday - is that there is not only the paper trail spewed out of the machine at the end of the day but alas a memory disk which is not released until the whole deal is shut down - and when the Judges take those bags back to the BOE - those disks have to be in there. . .

   Paper can be pitched with no problem (mostly Absentee - because they are the only ones not checked at vote time against a registration book). But you can’t dump those little disks -

   I just don’t like Absentee (anyone), early voting and any attempt to vote via the Internet.

   Use to be our vote mattered and made a difference - with ACORN and all the other shananigans - it is becoming a moot point.

   You need to take a test and pay a fee to drive a car.
   You need to register/tag a dog (at least here)
   You need to get a license to open a kennel.
   You need to show ID to get booze or cash a check.

   What does it say for a society that wants no requirements set on voting and one that does not require day care centers to obtain a license?

   What does that society actually value?

   Posted by wardmama4       10/31/2008  at  03:01 PM  



5. Drew, given the state of the art for the current generation of voting machines, roughly how many ways are there to mess with the tally, that would be undetectable except by the most careful and exacting forensic analysis of the software, transmission/reception facilities and the receiving and processing point? 

   When I use different kinds of spyware programs or different anti virus programs to scan my computer, I often find that one program finds something that the other doesn’t.  It’s not that they are bad programs, it’s that the malware writers are so d*mn creative!  Given that, I don’t see how any computerized vote counting program can be considered secure.  The old low tech paper ballot at least has the advantage of giving you a physical piece that can be examined and counted.  To smooth out the system, all we really need is a ruling specifying where the cut off is for an actual vote placed.  Debating hanging chads and dimpled chads on the spot gives the advantage to whoever has the loudest voice, not the voters.

   Anvils are low tech, but no one has improved on them yet.

   Posted by Dr. Jeff       10/31/2008  at  08:09 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.